But, hey, for all those NN supporters, why is it OK for websites like ESPN, the NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, and so many other left leaning outlets to charge for content? Isn’t that kind of prioritizing their content?

Let’s be clear: when you get big snows, or snows in places like Atlanta, sure, people will use that to poo poo anthropogenic climate change. In exactly the same way Warmists will use a hot day, rain, thunderstorms, tornadoes, basically any and every weather event to shriek about a doomed world. Or, this from Excitable Newsweek

Snowfall in Florida and Texas was a surprise for many across the country. It may have been particularly surprising because of the seeming contrast with globally rising temperatures. But odd snow events don’t disprove climate change—for a few simple reasons.

First of all, weather and climate are two very different things.

Weather indicates the short-term weather conditions—which can change minute-to-minute, hour-to-hour, day-to-day and season-to-season, according to NASA. Climate is all the various factors of weather that are averaged over a longer period of time. For instance, climate might be what you expect, like a very hot summer, but the actual weather could be a hot day with a thunderstorm.

Perhaps they should explain this to the rest of the Warmists, who blame every weather even on carbon pollution. I bet if I searched I could find lots of Newsweek articles showing Newsweek confusing weather with climate and blaming Mankind.

Of course, the article does go on to whine about CO2 being the control knob, doom from sea rise, agriculture being soon destroyed which means food price rises, etc, leading to

Snow may be more common in some places despite warming temperatures, which is an active point of research for climate scientists, according to Blunden. Changes in the Arctic could lead to more polar air “spilling” southward—which would cause cold air to spread down into lower altitudes.

Yes, they are now blaming cold weather on mankind and carbon pollution.

Governor Jerry Brown, like many other Warmists, was quick to link the California wildfires to Hotcoldwetdry. Well, they’ll have to continue searching for their white whale in at least one case

(Fox News) An illegal cooking fire at a homeless encampment sparked a wildfire in Bel-Air last week, authorities said Tuesday.

The Skirball fire erupted last Wednesday, burning more than 400 acres, destroying six structures and damaging 12 others. It is now 85 percent contained, with nearly 70 firefighters still working for full containment, officials told the Los Angeles Times.

The encampment was in a canyon several hundred feet from Interstate 405 and hidden from passing cars, the Times reported.

The fire was not deliberately set, investigators told the newspaper. They have not found any of the people who lived there, as the camp was largely destroyed, leaving officials with little evidence. The Los Angeles Fire Department found no suspects, and the size of the encampment before the fire was unclear, the report said.

The remnants of the site included a burned portable stove, pot, cheese grater, and fuel canisters, according to the newspaper. The camp was one of many makeshift communities that have developed along freeways, rivers and open spaces throughout Los Angeles.

Whoops!

Humans are usually the cause of fires in Southern California, through sources such as car crashes, faulty farm equipment, cigarette butts or camping fires, officials told the Times.

If the media explained exactly what the Obama era net neutrality actually did, what all the actual cons to it are, it wouldn’t poll so well. Net Neutrality sounds so positive, right? Regardless, we didn’t need it before 2015, and we do not need it now

(The Hill) The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is moving forward with a plan to scrap net neutrality rules, defying a massive outcry from activists, Democrats and consumers.

On Thursday, the FCC is expected to approve Chairman Ajit Pai’s proposal to repeal rules that require internet service providers to treat all web traffic equally. The measure is expected to pass 3-2, with all the Republican appointees supporting repeal and all the Democratic appointees opposing.

Polls on the topic vary, but a recent Morning Consult/Politico survey found that 52 percent of voters support the rules that are in place, including 53 percent of Republicans and 55 percent of Democrats. Overall disapproval of the rules sits at 18 percent.

Pai and the other FCC Republicans defend ending the rules, saying there is little danger that broadband providers will slow down or censor internet content if they aren’t in place. The regulations are too onerous, they say, and hurt the industry’s ability to innovate and tailor their services to consumers.

In fact, with the NN rules in place, there is a lot of censorship going on right now. I do not use it, but someone was explaining how all sorts of apps and providers disappear all the time for those who use Kodi to stream movies, tv show, and live content. They said that around a week or two ago, when they looked to watch a show, where they were usually 20+ streams, there are now less than 10, and they’re lucky if just one works. It’s understandable, because the stuff is pirated, but, ISPs are shutting down the streams.

“I think what net neutrality repealed would actually mean is we once again have a free and open internet,” Pai said on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show Monday night. “The government would not be regulating how anyone in the internet service providers, how anyone else in the internet economy manages their networks.”

It’s a bad idea to treat the Internet like it’s the phone company using 1930’s rules.

Democrats, major internet firms and tech startups see things very differently.

They say the net neutrality rules are essential for preserving an open internet. Without them, they warn, web companies will no longer compete on a level playing field.

When Democrats start talking about freedom, run, because their version of freedom always involves massive amounts of government.

Share this:

OK, an interesting question for you folks. I have some Best Buy credit, and I’m considering getting an Amazon Echo. The question is, which to get, the Echo or the Echo Plus? The Plus has a smarthome hub built in, but, it is somewhat limited. But, then, I do not play on hooking a ton of things up and getting crazy. A few lightbulbs here and there, a few switches. I’m not really concerned with being able to change Phillips light bulbs other colors.

On the other hand, the Plus is on sale for $119, and comes with one smart light bulb. The regular Echo is on sale for $79.99. I can get a Samsung Smartthings hub for $50. The add-ons are much greater.

There’s a ton of info out there, and, quite frankly, sometimes too much. Any ideas? Anyone use this stuff already.

BTW, I’m also considering using the credit, $300, on other stuff instead. A 5.1 or 3.1 soundbar is a consideration, to replace the 2.1 I have. I have the TV on a lot when home, watching sports, movies, certain shows. I’d like a high definition MP3 player to replace my 10 year old Creative Zen, but, really, the Creative Zen works, just doesn’t hold a charge well anymore. But, stays in car, so can keep plugged up, and only way getting new one is if also plays through USB. Don’t need a TV (that’s how I got the credit. Won one, 50 inch vs my 42 inch, but, ratings are much better on my Vizio, and I love the 240hz capability.)

I could get a Fire TV to replace my FireStick, and use the FS upstairs Never mind. New one doesn’t have Ethernet capability nor external storage card capability. I could wait for the Echo Spot to be released on the 19th. Looks intriguing, but, would be more for a bedroom. Use it as a clock, get some quick info in the morning. Tell it to turn on the coffee pot.

There are a lot of questions that should yield very straightforward yes or no answers, no matter what conspiracy theorists say. Is the world flat? No. Is the Moon made of cheese? No. Is climate change real? Yes. Unfortunately, just like people, robots sometimes don’t like to give yes or no answers, even if the subject matter is a scientific truth that’s very hard to deny. One of these robots is Jibo.

When it was first launched with an Indiegogo campaign in 2014, Jibo was touted as the “world’s first social robot” capable of holding a conversation and recognizing familiar faces. You can now have Jibo on your kitchen counter (for $899), but as you try to chitchat with it, don’t ask whether climate change is real, because it’ll reply in its boyish voice: “I’ve heard that’s a complicated topic,” and add nothing else.

When asked if climate change is real, artificial intelligence should just answer “yes,” not say that’s it’s complicated and leave at that. Love is complicated. Your relationship with your mom is complicated. Climate change is real and it’s happening. When you ask Jibo if the world is flat, it’ll simply say “no.” If you ask whether the Moon is made of cheese, it’ll say, “green cheese?” (AI jokes have a long way to go.)

But, it is complicated. Is it mostly/solely caused by Mankind or mostly/solely natural? Is CO2 (which they unscientifically call carbon pollution) really the control knob, or is it something else? How much of an effect does the Sun and other natural processes play? What effect does water vapor have? How about the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI) and land use? Why do so few Warmists give up their own use of fossil fuels and go carbon neutral? Why do they want to restrict the use of fossil fuels and other modern day conveniences, like air conditioning and refrigerators, from people of color in Africa, South America, and Asia? Why do all their solutions seem to revolve around taxes, fees, and bigger and bigger government which restricts freedom?

In all fairness, Jibo is not the only one that sometimes can’t give a satisfactory answer. When asked whetherglobal warming is a Chinese plot to destroy the US economy — which Trump has claimed — Alexa replied, “Sorry, I’m not sure.”

It’s wonderful. A month after the yearly UN Conference on the Parties climate scam fest, where tens of thousands of True Believers took long fossil fueled trips to complain about Other People using fossil fuels, there will be another climate scam conference in Paris. This is actually in what is supposed to be the straight news section of Time magazine

Foreign policy experts on both sides of the aisle predicted that President Trump’s decision to take the U.S. out of the world’s most significant agreement to fight climate change would leave the U.S. isolated on the issue.

Now they have one of their first examples of that argument.

Less than a year since Trump announced withdrawal from the Paris climate deal, a group of 50 world leaders — ranging from Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto to British Prime Minister Theresa May — will gather in Paris this week for an invitation-only climate change summit hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron. Trump was not invited.

Checking Trump’s twitter, I don’t think he cares. It would be funny if he called out these 50 world leaders for their hypocrisy in using fossil fuels and having huge carbon footprints.

Macron’s two-day climate change conference, officially billed as the One Planet Summit, will focus on how to finance both the global transition away from fossil fuels and measures needed to adapt to changes already underway caused by global warming. While world leaders from across the globe have reiterated their commitment to the Paris Agreement since Trump’s withdrawal announcement in June, ensuring adequate finance for climate related projects has remained difficult.

In other words, it’s about how Government can force you little peons to pay for the beliefs of the leaders while they live the high life.

With just two weeks until Congress is expected to leave town, the fate of roughly 700,000 young immigrants still hangs in the balance.

And, it could be up to Senate Democrats now to decide whether they will make protections for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program recipients a condition of their support for a must-pass spending bill or punt the issue to next year when they still have months to work it out.

There’s a whole host of issues that must be dealt with by the end of the year including reauthorizing a spying program, funding disaster relief and paying for the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which has all sparked questions about whether Democrats will insist DACA also be included in that list of year-end spending priorities.

Republican leaders have thrown cold water on the idea that a DACA deal could get attached to a year-end spending package, leading to questions about whether Democrats — under pressure from their base — would shut down the government over a program that doesn’t begin to expire fully until March. Activists and some Democratic members point out that the must-pass spending deadline could be the party’s best opportunity to exert pressure on Republicans who don’t want a government shutdown to occur when they control all levers of government.

In other words, will Democrats jam up the works, and even force a government shutdown, over protection of illegal aliens over the legal citizens and residents of the United States?

Many of the more extreme Democrats are more than willing to go this route, and they are really taking over the party from the oldsters like Pelosi. And they want a clean DACA bill, meaning that it gives everything to Dreamers, and does nothing on border security, sanctuary cities, judges to process deportees, and so forth. But, will they take the side of the illegals to gum needed legislation up over U.S. citizens? I guess we’ll see.

Calendar

Meta

SWAG

THE CODE

All posts here are my views. None represent my employer. If ye can prove me wrong, so be it. Ye can rant and rave at me, but be mostly polite to any other commentors. I will put up with quite a bit, but be mostly respectful to others.

NOTICE In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.